Capturing coastal morphological change within regional integrated assessment: an outcome-driven fuzzy logic approach

S. Hanson*, R.J. Nicholls*, P. Balson**, I. Brown^, J.R. French~, T. Spencer<, W.J. Sutherland> Southampton University*; British Geological Society**; The Macaulay Institute^; University College London~; Cambridge Coastal Research Unit, Cambridge University<; Department of Zoology, Cambridge University> October 2007

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

Working Paper 113

Capturing coastal morphological change within regional integrated assessment: an outcome-driven fuzzy logic approach
Lead Author: Hanson, S1; Contributing Authors: Nicholls, R J1; Balson, P2; Brown, I3; French, J R4; Spencer, T5;Sutherland, W. J. 6

School of Civil Engineering and the Environment, Highfield Campus, Southampton University, Southampton, SO17 1BJ ,UK . 2 British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK 3 The Macaulay Institute (ILUS Group) Craigiebuckler Aberdeen, UK 4 Coastal and Estuarine Research Unit, University College London, UK 5 Cambridge Coastal Research Unit, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK6 Department of Zoology, Cambridge University, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK

1

Tyndall Working Paper No. 113

October 2007

Please note that Tyndall working papers are "work in progress". Whilst they are commented on by Tyndall researchers, they have not been subject to a full peer review. The accuracy of this work and the conclusions reached are the responsibility of the author(s) alone and not the Tyndall Centre.

LRH: Hanson et al. Short running title: Coastal morphological change using an outcome-driven fuzzy logic approach

-1-

ABSTRACT
Climate change will have pervasive effects on the world’s coasts, but at broad scales these changes have typically proven difficult to analyse in a systematic manner. This paper explores an outcome-driven deductive methodology for geomorphological analysis that structures current knowledge and understanding using fuzzy logic concepts. Building on recent large-scale coastal investigations and with reference to a case study of the East Anglian coast U.K, the methodology defines the active coastal system using a flexible generic classification and integrates expert opinion, using the notion of possibility, as a basis for the assessment of potential future geomorphological response to changes in sea level and sediment supply. The proposed methodology produces a robust qualitative structure for assessment and forecasting of coastal geomorphology. Preliminary results for the East Anglian coast suggest that shoreline management is already having, and will continue to be, a significant influence on coastal evolution irrespective of the rate of sea-level rise. Therefore, significant potential exists to guide future coastal evolution towards preferred outcomes by using such methods as a component of adaptive shoreline management. This methodology could be applied to a wide range of problems both in geomorphology and other subjects..

ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: fuzzy logic; model framework, sea level, coastal management, sediment supply, East Anglia

-2-

INTRODUCTION
Prediction of geomorphological change at any scale requires the consideration of numerous influences, both physical and human-induced. This complexity, combined with uncertainty, can lead to as many explanations as there are detailed studies, creating difficulties for policy making at scales above the local. Most predictive research has focused on the development and testing of statistical techniques. Although process-based geomorphological models at broader scales are being developed (e.g. WALKDEN and HALL, 2005), the limitations of such detailed quantitative modelling have been widely acknowledged (see HAFF, 1996; WOLSTENHOLME, 1999). Similarly, in practice, reasoning and judgment play a

primary role, with ultimate confidence in model outputs being dependent on an intuitive understanding of the system being modelled (BECK, 1999; WRIGHT, LAWRENCE and COLLOPY, 1996). It is not surprising, therefore, that the prospective benefits of directly incorporating expertise and understanding within

geomorphological models have been explored over the last decade (COOPER and PILKEY, 2004; HARRISON, 2001; HESS and KING, 2002; KIRKBY, 1996; SHU-HSIEN LIAO, 2005; SPEDDING, 1997).

In this paper we describe an alternative approach to predicting geomorphological change. This outcome-driven methodology examines a number of possible futures/outcomes and assesses the likelihoods of each within a framework of ideas from Bayesian analyses, probabilistic reasoning and fuzzy logic, inorder to explore landscape form and its behaviour in response to external influences over both time and space (GROEN and MOSLEH, 2005; SUTHERLAND, 2006). This paper illustrates

this methodology, by predicting coastal geomorphological change to the East Anglian coast UK over the medium term (10-100 years) and regional scale (10-100km).

FUTURE STATES, FUZZY LOGIC AND THE ANALYSIS OF COASTAL CHANGE
Working over the medium term at a scale where data availability and detailed process understanding is variable, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research1 is exploring the integrated assessment of coastal units, such as sedimentary cells and sub-cells, to allow the investigation of strategic coastal planning (including shoreline management) in response to sea-level rise. This includes the development of a

capacity for the simulation of changes in coastal flood and erosion risk, biodiversity, and social and economic resources.

The approach adopted for this model, called the Coastal Simulator, is illustrated in Figure 1. Within this, the identification of physical / geomorphological states and their likely occurrence is fundamental. While recognising that an infinite range of possible futures can occur, this approach assumes these states can be condensed into a limited range of descriptive categories. This is because most states reflect degrees of the same outcome rather than discrete entities. This is illustrated in the case of a cliff section by the fact that it effectively only has few possible futures – to remain static or to retreat by varying extents. Defining these categories and assessing the likelihood that each will occur will usually provide most of the information practitioners require. Providing a single precise estimates, even with some estimate of error is often likely

1

Details of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Programme can be found at www.tyndall.ac.uk

-4-

to be more confusing. This approach thus gives answers that are appropriate to the uncertainty.

Figure 1. Outcome-driven framework used for the prediction of coastal change within the coastal simulator (after SUTHERLAND, 2006)

The definition of a limited number of future states is also able to incorporate the influence of shoreline management, which in many densely populated and economically developed areas focuses on the maintenance of a pre-determined defensive line by (i) hard defences which exclude natural processes or (ii) the manipulation of natural processes e.g. beach nourishment. This promotes an

understanding of the interdependency of management policy and coastal dynamics (e.g. COOPER and JAY, 2002; e.g. LEAFE, PETHICK and TOWNEND, 1998) and an appreciation of the fact that a number of alternative futures are possible (e.g. BOWEN and RILEY, 2003; THORNE, EVANS and PENNING-ROWSELL, 2007). Thus, proper assessment of potential future risks and appropriate management decisions, flexible in the face of uncertainty, can be made (TOWNEND, 2002; WILCOCK et al., 2003). By

-5-

using this approach to defining geomorphological change, the consequences for other key coastal factors, such as biodiversity and economic and social development, becomes easier to assess. With conventional modelling, such consequence. have to be recalculated if there is a change in the model structure or parameter value used. By contrast, with a limited number of outcomes the consequences of each can be assessed and a change in the structure or assumptions simply alters the likelihood of each outcome.

A number of approaches to modelling with qualitative knowledge are available. Of these, fuzzy logic, initially introduced in the 1960s (ZADEH, 1965), offers concepts and a methodology which underlie the aims of an outcome-driven model (SUTHERLAND, 2006). Instead of Boolean logic, it uses a collection of fuzzy sets (classes with inexact boundaries) and rules to simplify and reason about data (see KRUSE, BOUGH and NAUCK, 2000; KRUSE, GEBHARDT and KLAWONN, 1994; ZADEH, 2002; ZADEH et al., 1975; ZIMMERMAN, 2001). Fuzzy logic offers an organized and ‘mathematical’ method of handling imprecise concepts and/or data (YU and PARK, 2000) and is capable of incorporating multiple outcomes (NGUYEN, 1997) and has previously been applied to predicting geological change (DEMICO and KLIR, 2004). This approach does not, however, preclude the use of quantitative data; fuzzy analysis is able to incorporate information from a crisp (discrete) to a continuous (fuzzy) form and ‘defuzzification’ does not conflict with the process of collecting, classifying and analysing data (SILVERT, 1997). Fuzzy sets allow for a level of abstraction and

generalisation, commensurate with a regional scale of coastal description and classification which can, using linguistic rather than numerical variables, be organised within a reasoned and logically sufficient (‘if….then’) structure. Judicious use of descriptive terminology also permits non-explicit linkages between variables, for

-6-

example geomorphological drivers and behaviours (BRECKLING, 1992; BROWN, 2006; METTERNICHT, 2001; RICHARDS, 2004), which can then be associated with likelihood valuations. This structure is compatible with the Driver-Pressure-State-ImpactResponse (DPSIR) frameworks which are being increasingly used for environmental assessment (BORJA et al., 2006; HOLMAN et al., 2005a; HOLMAN et al., 2005b; e.g. OECD, 1993; PIRRONE et al., 2005) and provides a simplified, diagrammatic foundation for later model simulations.

METHODOLOGY
Model framework

DPSIR is a general framework for organising information about the environment which assumes cause-effect relationships between interacting components of social, economic, and environmental systems (ROTMANS et al., 1994). While often not explicitly described, this framework underlies much recent research and has proven to be a logical and efficient way to deliver information in a well-structured and userfriendly manner. In this study, the PSIR framework was simply defined, being based on four assumptions: (i) the premise that a small number of physiological and functional properties are required to explain the basic working of a complex world (e.g. HARRIS 1999 as cited in REYNOLDS, 2002); (ii) analysis can be based on discrete and interacting physiographic units as used in shoreline management planning (LEAFE, PETHICK and TOWNEND, 1998); (iii) a dynamic equilibrium exists between contemporary surface processes and the external driving forces which influence behaviour and (iv) a systems approach, with inputs, throughputs and outputs, can be used to determine change within the coastal system. The framework was divided into four main stages (Figure 2): the first three of these stages form the focus of this paper. -7-

Figure 2. Four stage PSIR framework for predicting geomorphological change on the coast

Regional landscape classification

An important first step in applying this methodology is the analysis of the coastal landscape. This is used to create a generic classification based on the identification of individual and combinations of geomorphological features. Ideally this classification would apply both alone and under the influence of coastal defences. Where amounts of detailed information are spatially-variable, e,g, as at the regional scale, a simplified classification is appropriate. The characteristics and boundaries of coastal units are largely controlled by geology and morphology, position and grouping of interconnected landforms (HASCHENBURGER and SOUCH, 2004; LESER, 1978; RASINMAKI, 2003). In cross-section, individual coastal landforms (here termed

-8-

elements) can be identified from changes in lithology, slope, relative elevation, degree of tidal influence and relative position. These elements can be described generically (e.g. reef, foreshore, cliff, barrier) forming the basis of a simplified regional coastal classification (Figure 3). Elements have clear long-shore limits and, in combination, can also be classified broadly into barrier and non-barrier coastal types (see Table 1).

Figure 3. Generic morphological elements of the coastal system

Table 1. Example cross-shore element combinations and classification

Coastal type Non-barrier Barrier

Profile class Non-barrier(low) Non-barrier (cliffed) a)With channel Barrier-backbarrier Fringing barrier b)Without channel

Cross-shore element combination Foreshore Backshore; foreshore (Tidally influenced) back-barrier; barrier; foreshore (Non-tidally influenced) backbarrier; barrier; foreshore Backshore; barrier; foreshore

-9-

Within this unmodified classification all coastal morphological elements can be considered ‘geomorphologically active’. ‘Hard’ coastal defences, as effective crossshore barriers to coastal processes, act in the same way as inherited geological or topographical constraints on the natural coastal system. This results in the

reclassification of the ‘fossilised’ areas as inactive hinterland and the active coastal system is restricted to elements seaward of the defence line (2001; FRENCH, 1997). The cross-shore profile of these elements can still be categorised using the previously described profile classes. This effectively redefines (and reduces) the active coastal system on which climate change is an influence (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Illustration of modified landscape classification. A) Cross-shore profile modification. B) Long-shore profile modification

- 10

Describing potential change

An outcome-driven model requires the identification of a limited range of both future states and drivers of the coastal system. . As future states are all comparative, this is achieved by the use of ordered linguistic terminology in the form of value, direction or rate descriptions (MCINTOSH, 2003). These include all prospective degrees of change and have basic conceptual advantages when defining and reasoning between drivers of change and responses. It also requires identifying the initial reference state. This may vary according to the research being undertaken, but would logically be the current active coastal configuration.

As change for drivers is always comparative, it is represented by three classes relative to the reference state (<, =, >); for example, the rate of sea-level rise would be described as (i) accelerating; (ii) no change, or (iii) decelerating when compared to existing conditions.

For potential future geomorphological states, change is encapsulated by migration and changes in geometry of the coastal profile. Basic responses can be captured and conveyed using one element as a key indicator, with other elements adjusted accordingly. This indicator element should be selected from a geomorphological knowledge of system relationships and with relevance to management interests (GAGLIARDI, ROSCIA and LAZAROIU, 2007).

Migration, the spatial adjustment of coastal landforms in order to maintain their relative position within the coastal system (PETHICK, 2001), can simply be described as (i) landward movement; (ii) no movement; or (iii) seaward movement relative to the initial position of the coastal element. Changes in the geometry of the indicator

- 11

element are related to sediment availability relationships (BAUER and DAVIDSONARNOTT, 2003; COOPER, HOOKE and BRAY, 2001; FORBES et al., 1995; NICHOLLS, DREDGE and WILSON, 2000) and, in plan for example, elements can either (i) widen; (ii) narrow; or (iii) remain constant when compared to its initial state. These

outcomes can be combined to provide a simple matrix of potential future states (Table 2).

Table 2. An example matrix of potential future states, which is then completed for the indicator element

POTENTIAL FUTURE STATES Landward Geometric change Widen No change Narrow

Positional change No change Seaward

Using this matrix, the possibility that a given state occurs in relation to a particular driver can be described in the form of a likelihood statement. At this stage, the use of expert judgement is integral to the approach. By using likelihood values rather than probability (as the latter infers an absolute numerical value), qualitative expert judgement is incorporated. Using a change matrix (Table 2), the relative likelihood for each future state is assessed using a limited number of pre-defined (fuzzy) value judgements according to expert knowledge and understanding of the coastal system under consideration. Two steps are required:

1.

the elimination of outcomes that are considered geomorphologically impossible; and

2.

the assessment of the relative likelihood of occurrence between remaining possible outcomes (i.e. high, medium, low).

- 12

In completing likelihood matrices, a series of ‘if….then’ questions are effectively being answered through a systematic procedure. This needs to be formalised within the DPSIR framework to create a transparent, widely applicable rule-base that can be applied where similar conditions are found. These rules are flexible and can be altered/deleted/added according to the coastal system being investigated or as knowledge and understanding develops. The rules and matrices can be completed by individuals, which can be aggregated using an iterative approach such as the Delphi technique (MUNIER and RONDE, 2001; OLIVER, 2002; ROWE and WRIGHT, 1999) or by group consensus where facilitators allow debate and discussion within the confines of the project aims. Either approach will procure a confidence level for each

likelihood; i.e. an undisputed likelihood can be assigned a high confidence level whereas one which is strongly debated will have a lower confidence value.

THE EAST ANGLIAN COAST – CASE STUDY
The potential of a more qualitative approach to describing regional coastal behaviour has recently been highlighted in the UK by FUTURECOAST, a large-scale coastal analysis carried out for the UK Government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). This study used a qualitative, expert-based, approach to describe future geomorphological trends along the coasts of England and Wales (BURGESS, JAY and HOSKING, 2002; COOPER and JAY, 2002; HALCROW, 2002). Building on the knowledge available from the FUTURECOAST project and other Tyndall Centre-funded research, the Norfolk and Suffolk coasts of East Anglian coast, southern North Sea (Figure 5) were selected as a suitable test case for the methodology described above. These coasts exhibit a variety of open coast and estuarine landforms, although only the open coast forms are analysed here. Eroding

- 13

cliff sections provide a variable sediment supply (mud, sand and gravel) and are significant in terms of sediment provision to neighbouring sand and gravel beaches and associated landforms (CLAYTON, 1989; DICKSON et al., 2005; HANSON and NICHOLLS, 2001). The coast has many challenging management issues including extensive artificial defences.

Figure 5. The Norfolk and Suffolk coasts, East Anglia, UK

For this initial testing of the proposed methodology, the prognosis period was limited to 50 years (i.e. to the 2050s) and coastal change drivers limited to sea-level rise and sediment availability.

Regional landscape classification

The generic elements and profile classes found on the wave-dominated open coasts of East Anglia are described and illustrated in Table 1 and Figure 3 respectively. Mapping the distribution of these elements produced a series of potential coastal configurations dependent on the application of five regional shoreline management

- 14

scenarios (described in Table 3), which were collectively considered to reflect, between two extremes, the range of realistic future policy alternatives.

Table 3. Definition of generic regional management policy scenarios used during the project

Management option Total defence (TD) Maintain the existing line (MEL) Small-scale realignment (SSR) Large-scale realignment (LSR) No defences (ND)

Definition
defence line continuous at Mean High Water maintains the defence line in its position as defined by the EA and Local Authorities (current system state) realigns the defence line landward while protecting most settlements realigns the defence line to protect major assets only no management interference in the natural system – all existing defences are abandoned and removed

Initial comparison indicates that, regionally, the active coastal system is substantially different under each of the differing management scenarios. Notable differences in system composition (see example Suffolk coast profile classifications in Figure 6) were found. The reduction in ‘non-barrier (cliffed)’ profiles, with increased

intervention, implies the effective functioning of the biophysical system may be impaired as the cliffs are a major source of sediment on the East Anglian coast (CLAYTON, 1989) – at the extreme, under the total defence scenario the active coastal system is reduced to a single profile type - non-barrier (low) - with no new sediment input from cliff erosion.

Significant variations in the area of active backbarrier (saltmarsh and mudflat habitats) are prominent as a result of the reclassification. Compared to the Maintain the Line (MEL) management option (the current and reference state), the more strategic Large-scale Realignment (LSR) option restores active backbarrier areas to an area comparable to an undefended shoreline. The more piecemeal Small-Scale

Realignment (SSR) management option also increases active backbarrier areas but - 15

most are spatially concentrated on the North Norfolk coast. This has important implications for biodiversity (loss/gain of habitat over substantial areas), maintenance costs for the defence line (as it is fully exposed to tidal and wave impacts as the protective beach morphology is lost or degraded) and the character of the coastal landscape itself (including cultural, amenity and tourism benefits).

- 16

Figure 6. Classification of the active coastal system in Suffolk und differing management under scenarios with geographical location

- 17

Describing future states

On the East Anglian open coast, coarse sediments (sands and gravels) are dominant, which implies that foreshore behaviour is the most representative indicator element for the non-barrier coastlines (DICKSON et al., 2005; WALKDEN and HALL, 2005) but with barrier behaviour for barrier coastlines. The sediment type also indicates that linkages between indicator elements can be established using existing studies of longshore transport, sediment cells/sub-cells and sediment budgets (COOPER, HOOKE and BRAY, 2001; e.g. MAFF et al., 1995; SNSSTS, 2002). This was used to determine the start, end and drift direction for a group of linked profiles. Where long-shore drift is not known, or believed not to be a dominant process, onshore-offshore sediment transport with a neutral long-shore flux was assumed. Long-shore relationships were captured using sub-categories of barrier elements (Table 4). These indicate differences in long-shore continuity, which may be influential when determining future behaviour and assessing future states.

Table 4. Barrier element subcategories

Profile class

Barrier category
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5

Barrier description
Unattached barrier Barrier attached at one end Barrier attached at both ends Barrier attached at rear Discontinuous barrier

Example
Barrier island Spit Barrier beach Raised beach; Ness River mouth or breached barrier

East Anglian example
Scolt Head Island, Norfolk Blakeney Spit, Norfolk Minsmere, Suffolk Aldeburgh River Deben

Barrier-backbarrier Barrier-backbarrier Barrier-backbarrier Fringing barrier Barrier-backbarrier with channel

Changes in drivers
Changes in sediment budgets were described as (i) positive budgets (input > output), which result in an internal volume increase; (ii) neutral budgets (input = output),

- 18

indicating no internal change in sediment volume; and (iii) negative budgets (input < output), where an internal volume decrease occurs. The rate of sea-level rise was described as (i) accelerated – an increase compared to the current rate; (ii) no change – current rate is maintained; or (iii) decelerated – a decrease compared to the current rate.

Changes in coastal elements
For each indicator element, the relationship between sediment supply (as volume) and simplified geomorphological response was captured using triangular prisms. Geometrical relationships between volume, height, width and length, can be used to illustrate alterations in form (Figure 7). In this instance, cross-shore width was used as the nominated variable for the likelihood matrix.

Figure 7. Triangular prisms used to describe indicator elements on the East Anglian coast>>

Migration was described as either landward, no change or seaward, relative to the centre line of the foreshore or the crest line of the barrier.

For barrier elements, an additional geomorphological possibility of major interest to the coastal manager is a break in long-shore continuity, i.e. a breach, which is usually

- 19

associated with extreme catastrophic events such as the well-known 1953 storm surge (MCROBIE, SPENCER and GERRITSEN, 2005). Some breaches may be temporary and will naturally seal; others may remain as new tidal inlets, substantially and permanently changing landward elements. Permanent breaches were considered to be more strongly associated with particular future states. For example a narrowing barrier (which in accordance with geometric rules is also a lowering) is more likely to breach than a widening barrier, irrespective of height. Breaching was therefore

included as a conditional possibility within the likelihood matrices.

Likelihood matrices

To complete the likelihood matrices, a number of coastal experts with knowledge of the East Anglian coast were invited to participate in a workshop held in London in November 2004. Following discussion of the project approach, the group was

divided and the assembled experts invited to complete selected likelihood matrices. A consensus approach (HERRERA, HERRERA-VIEDMA and
VERDEGAY,

1996;

HOLLINGSHEAD, 1996) was used at the workshop as open debate and discussion were considered appropriate to the development of the methodology at this point. However, issues regarding selective participation (see BELL, RAIFFA and TVERSKY, 1988; MILLIGAN, O'RIODAN and WATKINSON, 2006; OUCHI, 2004) would need to be considered in depth in any future use of the methodology. Table 5 illustrates an example of a completed likelihood matrix.

Table 5. Example of a likelihood change matrix completed for an unconstrained barrier at the expert workshop for a combine scenario whereby there is no change in the rate of sea-level rise and increased sediment supply

- 20

Geometric change

Migration Landward No movement HIGH NONE NONE HIGH NONE NONE Seaward MEDIUM NONE NONE LOW NONE NONE

Breach

GROUP 1

GROUP 2

Widen No change Narrow Widen No change Narrow

NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE

LOW

NONE

No additional potential outcomes were considered to be missing. As shown in Table 5, there was no difference between the groups in terms of which future states were considered possible. There was also agreement between the groups as to the state with the highest likelihood, indicating a high level of confidence in the prediction.

Predicting coastal futures

The likelihood matrices from the workshop were then used to produce regional geomorphological predictions for the Norfolk and Suffolk coasts. Figure 8 illustrates the steps undertaken, as a series of “if…then” statements and rules, to determine the influence, over a 50 year time span, of no change in the rate of sea-level rise on the coast of East Anglia. Sediment availability scenarios were determined for each

indicator element by capturing long-shore sediment relationships through the effect of the management policy options relative to the reference state. For example, if a nonbarrier cliffed profile in an undefended coast becomes a non-barrier low profile following the selection of a management scenario then down-drift profiles will have a negative sediment budget until the end of the drift section or a intermediate nonbarrier cliffed profile is reached; conversely, if a defence is removed from a nonbarrier (low) section in front of a cliff then the down-drift sediment budget was

- 21

deemed to be positive. Application of the initial series of “if…then” rules of sediment supply highlighted the importance of the relative long-shore lengths of adjacent profiles over time. Despite these modifications the rule-base remained simple and was easily applied. Another important factor to note in this context is that the

location of drift divides becomes increasingly influential when applying management scenarios as the selection of the sediment supply condition for down-drift sections is closely related.

Figure 8. Flow diagram showing the framework for determining possible future coastal configurations

- 22

Figure 9. Regional summaries of potential responses to a constant rate of sea-level rise under differing management scenarios for the next 50 years

The most likely future states for the East Anglian coast under each management scenario are shown in Figure 9. Each management option alters the balance between barrier and non-barrier profiles (change in indicator elements, Figure 9a) with the foreshore becoming increasingly the more dominant element as the management option becomes more interventionist towards the Total Defence option. For the ‘Maintain the Line’ and ‘Total Defence’ options strongly associated with non-barrier (low) profiles during reclassification, the prevention of cliff erosion implies selection of negative sediment budgets (less input than the reference state) within the ‘if…then’

- 23

rule structure. Consequently, for these management options, no movement other than landward is considered likely (Figure 9b) and increasing lengths of the active coastal zone are predicted to narrow (Figure 9c). High levels of confidence are associated with these predictions. The increase in narrowing as a response option where a barrier remains the indicator element also increased the length of coast for which breaching was considered likely. By comparison, for the realignment and undefended options, positive sediment input occurred. This produced occasions where existing barriers and foreshores had the potential to increase in sediment volume and alternative future states, including seaward movement of these elements, were considered possible.

The results obtained from the Norfolk/Suffolk case study indicate that the positioning and length of defences are major influences on the future behaviour of the coastal system. By altering sediment supply and imposing physical constraints around the coastal system, management policies (and therefore socio-economic values) may thus be more influential than sea-level rise as a determinant of future coastal evolution.

CONCLUSIONS
The strengths of the outcome-driven fuzzy logic approach described here lie in its qualitative description and simple, adaptive structure. While not seen as a

replacement for process-based modelling, qualitative modelling of this kind can be extremely valuable as a precursor to more quantitative models. It is an essential step in the development of any quantitative simulation modelling (WOLSTENHOLME, 1999). The outcome-driven approach within a PSIR framework has the potential for dealing with a range of complex problems, not just restricted to geomorphology, where a limited range of possible future states can be defined and presented. Applied - 24

to the East Anglian coast, the approach provided a coherent conceptual structure within which broad patterns of geomorphological responses to climate change and hypothetical management responses were evaluated. Even at this preliminary stage, broad behavioural characteristics could be distinguished which, when applied, highlighted the relative importance of sea-level rise and management policy on future coastal evolution.

The linguistic terminology and structure of fuzzy logic necessitated the distillation of the coastal system to its essential aspects. Simplifying a complex system in this manner is not unproblematic and is likely to involve some debate over the degree of abstraction which is applicable. However, it is capable of achieving useful results at a regional level. Here, policy development can readily incorporate insight by inference (qualitative data) rather than detailed quantification. Furthermore, the description of multiple possible future states with associated likelihood valuations can be used as a basis for guiding management actions. Also, the qualitative, expert-based, geomorphological reasoning allows the methodology to be consistent across geomorphological features where detailed quantitative data is unavailable. The model framework also has the advantage that changes in knowledge, theories or information (unlike conventional models where assumptions are embedded within computer coding) will usually just require changing the values within the likelihood tables or the if…..then rules; both are explicit and straightforward to interpret so can be challenged and debated by other scientists (SUTHERLAND, 2006). This simple

transparency approach is thus is likely to improve model quality as errors and unrealistic assumptions are more obvious. The methodology also lends itself to exploring different views and controversies and how sensitive future coastal evolution might be to alternative models of controlling factors.

- 25

In addition, the distillation process is a means of compiling a common vocabulary and language for use within and across disciplinary boundaries (e.g. between geomorphologists, ecologists, planners and mathematical modellers as discussed further in SPEDDING, 1997; ZHU et al., 2001) and the conceptually simple design has stakeholder communication value – especially amongst non-experts where communication of complex issues is essential if participation in the decision-making process is to be encouraged.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was carried out under the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change’s Research Programme (Research project T3.42). The authors would also like to thank the participants of an expert workshop whose comments and advice were valuable in the development of this approach.

LITERATURE CITED
BAUER, B. O. and DAVIDSON-ARNOTT, R. G. D. 2003. A general framework for modeling sediment supply to coastal dunes including wind angle, beach geometry, and fetch effects. Geomorphology, 49, (1-2), 89-108. BECK, M. B. 1999. Coping with ever larger problems, models and databases. Water Science and Technology, 39, (4), 1-11. BELL, D. E., RAIFFA, H. and TVERSKY, A. 1988. Decision making: Descriptive, normative and prescriptive interactions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 623p. BORJA, A., GALPARSORO, I., SOLAUN, O., MUXIKA, I., TELLO, E. M., URIARTE, A. and VALENCIA, V. 2006. The European Water Framework Directive and the DPSIR, a methodological approach to assess the risk of failing to achieve good ecological status. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 66, (1-2), 84-96. BOWEN, R. E. and RILEY, C. 2003. Socio-economic indicators and integrated coastal management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 46, (3-4), 299-312. BRECKLING, B. 1992. Uniqueness of ecosystems versus generalizability and predictability in ecology. Ecological Modelling, 63, (1-4), 13-27.

- 26

BROWN, I. 2006. Modelling future landscape change on coastal floodplains using a rule-based GIS. Environmental Modelling & Software, 21, 1479-1490. BURGESS, K. A., JAY, H. and HOSKING, A. 2002. FUTURECOAST: Predicting the future coastal evolution of England and Wales. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference - Littoral 2002, The Changing Coast. Porto, Portugal. EUROCOAST, 2, 295-301. CLAYTON, K. M. 1989. Sediment inputs from the North Norfolk cliffs, Eastern England - A century of coast protection and its effect. Journal of Coastal Research, 5, (3), 433-442. COOPER, J. A. G. and PILKEY, O. H. 2004. Alternatives to mathematical modelling of beaches. Journal of Coastal Research, 20, (3), 641-644. COOPER, N. J., HOOKE, J. M. and BRAY, M. J. 2001. Predicting coastal evolution using a sediment budget approach: a case study from southern England. Ocean and Coastal Management, 44, 711-728. COOPER, N. J. and JAY, H. 2002. Predictions of large-scale coastal tendency: development and application of a qualitative behaviour-based methodology. Journal of Coastal Research, 36, 173-181.
Demico, R.V. and Klir, G.J. (Eds) Fuzzy logic in geology. San Diego, USA. Academic Press, 347pp.

DICKSON, M., WALKDEN, M., HALL, J., PEARSON, S. and REES, J. 2005. Numerical modelling of potential climate-change impacts on rates of soft-cliff recession, northeast Norfolk, UK. SANCHEZ-ARCILLA, A. (Ed.) Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Coastal Dynamics. 4-8th April 2005; Barcelona, Spain. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), (CD ROM). FORBES, D. L., ORFORD, J. D., CARTER, R. W. G., SHAW, J. and JENNINGS, S. C. 1995. Morphodynamic evolution, self-organisation, and instability of coarse-clastic barriers on paraglacial coasts. Marine Geology, 126, (1-4), 63-85. FRENCH, P. W. 1997. Coastal and estuarine management. London, UK: Routledge, 251ppp. FRENCH, P. W. 2001. Coastal defences. London, UK: Routledge, 384p. GAGLIARDI, F., ROSCIA, M. and LAZAROIU, G. 2007. Evaluation of sustainability of a city through fuzzy logic. Energy, 32, (5), 795-802. GROEN, F. J. and MOSLEH, A. 2005. Foundations of probabilistic inference with uncertain evidence. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 39, (1), 49-83. HAFF, P. K. 1996. Limitations on predictive modelling in geomorphology. In RHOADS, B. L. and THORN, C. E. (Eds.) The scientific nature of geomorphology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp.337-358. HALCROW 2002. Futurecoast. Three CD set comprising reports and interactive map browser. Two CDs with oblique aerial photography of the shoreline of England and Wales. London: Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/futurecoast.htm. HANSON, S. and NICHOLLS, R. J. 2001. Uncertainties in sediment inputs from coastal erosion. HANSON, H. and LARSON, M. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Coastal Dynamics. 11-15 June, Lund, Sweden. ASCE, 607-616. - 27

HARRISON, S. 2001. On reductionism and emergence in geomorphology. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 26, (3), 327-339. HASCHENBURGER, J. K. and SOUCH, C. 2004. Contributions to the Understanding of Geomorphic Landscapes Published in the Annals. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94, (4), 771-793. HERRERA, F., HERRERA-VIEDMA, E. and VERDEGAY, J. L. 1996. A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 78, (1), 73-87. HESS, G. R. and KING, T. J. 2002. Planning open spaces for wildlife: I. Selecting focal species using a Delphi survey approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, (1), 2540. HOLLINGSHEAD, A. 1996. The rank-order effect in group decision making. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 68, (3), 181-193. HOLMAN, I. P., NICHOLLS, R. J., BERRY, P. M., HARRISON, P. A., AUDSLEY, E., SHACKLEY, S. and ROUNSEVELL, M. D. A. 2005a. A regional, multi-sectoral and integrated assessment of the impacts of climate and socio-economic change in the UK: Part II Results. Climatic Change, 71, (1-2), 43-73. HOLMAN, I. P., ROUNSEVELL, M. D. A., SHACKLEY, S., HARRISON, P. A., NICHOLLS, R. J., BERRY, P. M. and AUDSLEY, E. 2005b. A regional, multi-sectoral and integrated assessment of the impacts of climate and socio-economic change in the UK: Part I Methodology. Climatic Change, 71 (1-2), 9-41. KIRKBY, M. 1996. A role for theoretical models in geomorphology? In RHOADS, B. L. and THORN, C. E. (Eds.) The scientific nature of geomorphology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp.257-272. KRUSE, R., GEBHARDT, J. and KLAWONN, F. 1994. Foundations of fuzzy systems. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 278p. KRUSE, R., BOUGH, C. and NAUCK, D. 2000. Problems and prospects in fuzzy data analysis. Available at http://fuzzy.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~borgelt/papers/bt2.pdf. Last accessed 1st December 2005. LEAFE, R., PETHICK, J. and TOWNEND, I. 1998. Realizing the benefits of shoreline management. The Geographical Journal, 164, (3), 282-290. LESER, H. 1978. Medium-scale geomorphological mapping and landscape ecology. In DEMECK, J. and EMBLETON, C. (Eds.) Guide to medium-scale geomorphological mapping. E.Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung: Stuttgart, pp.149-169. MAFF, THE WELSH OFFICE, ASSOCIATION OF DISTRICT COUNCILS, ENGLISH NATURE and NATIONAL RIVERS AUTHORITY 1995. Shoreline Management Plans: a guide for coastal defence authorities. Publication PB 2197. London, UK: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF). MCINTOSH, B. S. 2003. Qualitative modelling with imprecise ecological knowledge: a framework for simulation. Environmental Modelling and Software, 18, (3-4), 295307. MCROBIE, A., SPENCER, T. and GERRITSEN, H. 2005. The Big Flood: North Sea storm surge. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 363, 1261-1491.

- 28

METTERNICHT, G. 2001. Assessing temporal and spatial changes of salinity using fuzzy logic, remote sensing and GIS. Foundations of an expert system. Ecological Modelling, 144, (2-3), 163-179. MILLIGAN, J., O'RIODAN, T. and WATKINSON, A. 2006. Designing coastlines fit for the future. English Nature Research Reports, No 702. Peterborough, UK: English Nature, Available at: http://www.english-nature.org.uk/pubs/publication/PDF/702.pdf. MUNIER, F. and RONDE, P. 2001. The role of knowledge codification in the emergence of consensus under uncertainty: empirical analysis and policy implications. Research Policy, 30, (9), 1537-1551. NGUYEN, H. T. 1997. Fuzzy sets and probability. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 90, (2), 129132. NICHOLLS, R. J., DREDGE, A. and WILSON, T. 2000. Shoreline change and fine-grained sediment input: Isle of Sheppey coast, Thames Estuary, UK. In PYE, K. and ALLEN, J. R. L. (Eds.) Coastal and estuarine environments: sedimentology, geomorphology and geoarchaeology. Special Publication 175. London: Geological Society of London, pp.305-316. OECD 1993. OECD core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews. Environment Monographs No. 83. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 39ppp. OLIVER, I. 2002. An expert panel-based approach to the assessment of vegetation condition within the context of biodiversity conservation: Stage 1: the identification of condition indicators. Ecological Indicators, 2, (3), 223-237. OUCHI, F. 2004. A literature review on the use of expert opinion in probabilistic risk analysis. Policy Research Working Paper 3201. World Bank, http://econ.worldbank.org PETHICK, J. 2001. Coastal management and sea level rise. Catena, 42, 307-322. PHILLIPS, J. D. 2003. Sources of non-linearity and complexity in geomorphic systems. Progress in Physical Geography, 27, (1), 1-23. PIRRONE, N., TROMBINO, G., CINNIRELLA, S., ALGIERI, A., BENDORICCHIO, G. and PALMERI, L. 2005. The Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) approach for integrated catchment-coastal zone management: preliminary application to the Po catchment-Adriatic Sea coastal zone system. Regional Environmental Change, 5, (23), 111-137. RASINMAKI, J. 2003. Modelling spatio-temporal environmental data. Environmental Modelling & Software, 18, (10), 877-886. REYNOLDS, C. S. 2002. Ecological pattern and ecosystem theory. Ecological Modelling, 158, 181-200. RICHARDS, R. M., JR., 2004. A visual, hierarchical approach to implementing rulebased algorithms in classification of discrete, homogenous objects. Decision Support Systems, 38, (1), 81-89. ROTMANS, J., VAN ASSELT, M. B. A., DE BRUIN, A. J., DEN ELZEN, M. G. J., DE GREEF, J., HILDERINK, H. B. M., HOEKSTRA, A. Y., JANSSEN, M. A., KOSTER, H. W., MARTENS, W. J. M., NIESEN, L. W. and DE VRIES, H. J. M. 1994. Global change and sustainable development. A modelling perspective for the next decade. Copenhagen,

- 29

Demnark: The National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), 80p. ROWE, G. and WRIGHT, G. 1999. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15, (4), 353-375. SHU-HSIEN LIAO 2005. Expert system methodologies and applications--a decade review from 1995 to 2004. Expert Systems with Applications, 28, (1), 93-103. SILVERT, W. 1997. Ecological impact classification with fuzzy sets. Ecological Modelling, 96, 1-10. SNSSTS 2002. Southern North Sea Sediment Transport Study - Phase 2. Report EX 4526 produced for Great Yarmouth Borough Council. Wallingford H R, Available at http://www.sns2.org. Last accessed 20 January 2006. SPEDDING, N. 1997. On growth and form in geomorphology. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 22, (3), 261-265. SUTHERLAND, W. 2006. Predicting the ecological consequences of environmental change: a review of the methods. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43, 599-616. THORNE, C., EVANS, E. and PENNING-ROWSELL, E. (Eds.) 2007. Future flooding and coastal erosion risks. London, UK: Thomas Telford, 528p. TOWNEND, I. 2002. Marine science for strategic planning and management: the requirement for estuaries. Marine Policy, 26, (3), 209-219. WALKDEN, M. J. A. and HALL, J. W. 2005. A predictive mesoscale model of the erosion and profile development of soft rock shores. Coastal Engineering, 52, 535563. WILCOCK, P. R., SCHMIDT, J. C., WOLMAN, M. G., DIETRICH, W. E., DOMINICK, D., DOYLE, M. W., GRANT, G. E., IVERSON, R. M., MONTGOMERY, D. R., PIERSON, T. C., SCHILLING, S. P. and WILSON, R. C. 2003. When models meet managers: Examples from geomorphology. In WILCOCK, P. R. and IVERSON, R. M. (Eds.) Prediction in geomorphology. Geophysical Monograph 135. Washington DC, USA: American Geophysical Union, pp.27-40. WOLSTENHOLME, E. F. 1999. Qualitative vs quantitative modelling: the evolving balance. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50, (4), 422-428. WRIGHT, G., LAWRENCE, M. J. and COLLOPY, F. 1996. The role and validity of judgment in forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting, 12, (1), 1-8. YU, D. and PARK, W. S. 2000. Combination and evaluation of expert opinions characterized in terms of fuzzy probabilities. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 27, (8), 713726. ZADEH, L. A. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, (3), 338-353. ZADEH, L. A., FU, K.-S., TANAKA, K. and SHIMURA, M. 1975. Fuzzy sets and their application to cognitive and decision processes. New York: Academic Press, 506p. ZADEH, L. A. 2002. Toward a perception-based theory of probabilistic reasoning with imprecise probabilities. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 105, 233-264. ZHU, A. X., HUDSON, B., BURT, J., LUBICH, K. and SIMONSON, D. 2001. Soil mapping using GIS, expert knowledge, and fuzzy logic. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 65, 1463 -1472. - 30

ZIMMERMAN, H.-J. 2001. Fuzzy set theory and its applications. 4th edition. Dortrecht, Germany: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 544p.

- 31

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Outcome-driven framework used for the prediction of coastal change within the coastal simulator (after SUTHERLAND, 2006) Figure 2. Four stage DPSIR framework for predicting geomorphological change on the coast Figure 3. Generic morphological elements of the coastal system Figure 4. Illustration of modified landscape classification. A) Cross-shore profile modification. B) Long-shore profile modification Figure 5. The Norfolk and Suffolk coasts, East Anglia, UK Figure 6. Classification of the active coastal system in Suffolk under differing management scenarios with geographical location Figure 7. Triangular prisms used to describe indicator elements on the East Anglian coast Figure 8. Flow diagram showing the framework for determining possible future coastal configurations Figure 9. Regional summaries of potential responses to a constant rate of sea-level rise under differing management scenarios for the next 50 years

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Example cross-shore element combinations and classification Table 2. An example matrix of potential future states which is then completed for the indicator element Table 3. Definition of generic regional management policy scenarios used during the project Table 4. Barrier element subcategories Table 5. Example of a likelihood change matrix completed for an unconstrained barrier at the expert workshop for a combine scenario whereby there is no change in the rate of sea-level rise and increased sediment supply

- 32

Tyndall Working Paper series 2000 - 2007
The Tyndall Centre working paper series presents results from research which are mature enough to be submitted to a refereed journal, to a sponsor, to a major conference or to the editor of a book. The intention is to enhance the early public availability of research undertaken by the Tyndall family of researchers, students and visitors. They can be downloaded from the Tyndall Website at: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/working_papers.shtml The accuracy of working papers and the conclusions reached are the responsibility of the author(s) alone and not the Tyndall Centre.

Papers available in this series are:
• Okereke, C., Bulkeley, H. (2007) Conceptualizing climate change governance beyond the international regime: A review of four theoretical approaches: Tyndall Working Paper No. 112 • Doulton, H., Brown, K. (2007) ‘Ten years to prevent catastrophe’? Discourses of climate change and international development in the UK press: Tyndall Working Paper No. 111 • Dawson, R.J., et al (2007) Integrated analysis of risks of coastal flooding and cliff erosion under scenarios of long term change: Tyndall Working Paper No. 110 • Okereke, C., (2007) A review of UK FTSE 100 climate strategy and a framework for more in-depth analysis in the context of a post-2012 climate regime: Tyndall Centre Working Paper 109 • Gardiner S., Hanson S., Nicholls R., Zhang Z., Jude S., Jones A.P., et al (2007) The Habitats Directive, Coastal Habitats and Climate Change – Case Studies from the South Coast of the UK: Tyndall Centre Working Paper 108 • Schipper E. Lisa, (2007) Climate Change Adaptation and Development: Exploring the Linkages: Tyndall Centre Working Paper 107 • Okereke C., Mann P, Osbahr H, (2007) Assessment of key negotiating issues at Nairobi climate COP/MOP and what it means for the future of the climate regime. : Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 106 • Walkden M, Dickson M, (2006) The response of soft rock shore profiles to increased sea-level rise. : Tyndall Centre Working Paper 105 • Dawson R., Hall J, Barr S, Batty M., Bristow A, Carney S, Evans E.P., Kohler J., Tight M, Walsh C, Ford A, (2007) A blueprint for the integrated assessment of climate change in cities. : Tyndall Centre Working Paper 104 • Dickson M., Walkden M., Hall J., (2007) Modelling the impacts of climate change on an eroding coast over the 21st Century: Tyndall Centre Working Paper 103 • Klein R.J.T, Erickson S.E.H, Næss L.O, Hammill A., Tanner T.M., Robledo, C., O’Brien K.L.,(2007) Portfolio screening to support the mainstreaming of adaptation to climatic change into development assistance: Tyndall Centre Working Paper 102 • Agnolucci P., (2007) Is it going to happen? Regulatory Change and Renewable Electricity: Tyndall Centre Working Paper 101 • Kirk K., (2007) Potential for storage of carbon dioxide in the rocks beneath the East Irish Sea: Tyndall Centre Working Paper 100 • Arnell N.W., (2006) Global impacts of abrupt climate change: an initial assessment: Tyndall Centre Working Paper 99 • Lowe T.,(2006) Is this climate porn? How does climate change communication affect our perceptions and behaviour?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 98
2000 - 2007

Tyndall Working Papers

• Walkden M, Stansby P,(2006) The effect of dredging off Great Yarmouth on the wave conditions and erosion of the North Norfolk coast. Tyndall Centre Working Paper 97 • Anthoff, D., Nicholls R., Tol R S J, Vafeidis, A., (2006) Global and regional exposure to large rises in sea-level: a sensitivity analysis. This work was prepared for the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change: Tyndall Centre Working Paper 96 • Few R., Brown K, Tompkins E. L, (2006) Public participation and climate change adaptation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 95 • Corbera E., Kosoy N, Martinez Tuna M, (2006) Marketing ecosystem services through protected areas and rural communities in Meso-America: Implications for economic efficiency, equity and political legitimacy, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 94 • Schipper E. Lisa, (2006) Climate Risk, Perceptions and Development in El Salvador, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 93 • Tompkins E. L, Amundsen H, (2005) Perceptions of the effectiveness of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in prompting behavioural change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 92 • Warren R., Hope C, Mastrandrea M, Tol R S J, Adger W. N., Lorenzoni I., (2006) Spotlighting the impacts functions in integrated assessments. Research Report Prepared for the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Paper 91 • Warren R., Arnell A, Nicholls R., Levy P E, Price J, (2006) Understanding the regional impacts of climate change: Research Report Prepared for the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 90 • Barker T., Qureshi M, Kohler J., (2006) The Costs of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation with Induced Technological Change: A Meta-Analysis of Estimates in the Literature, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 89 • Kuang C, Stansby P, (2006) Sandbanks for coastal protection: implications of sea-level rise. Part 3: wave modelling, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 88

• Kuang C, Stansby P, (2006) Sandbanks for coastal protection: implications of sea-level rise. Part 2: current and morphological modelling, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 87 • Stansby P, Kuang C, Laurence D, Launder B, (2006) Sandbanks for coastal protection: implications of sea-level rise. Part 1: application to East Anglia, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 86 • Bentham M, (2006) An assessment of carbon sequestration potential in the UK – Southern North Sea case study: Tyndall Centre Working Paper 85 • Anderson K., Bows A., Upham P., (2006) Growth scenarios for EU & UK aviation: contradictions with climate policy, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 84 • Williamson M., Lenton T., Shepherd J., Edwards N, (2006) An efficient numerical terrestrial scheme (ENTS) for fast earth system modelling, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 83 • Bows, A., and Anderson, K. (2005) An analysis of a post-Kyoto climate policy model, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 82 • Sorrell, S., (2005) The economics of energy service contracts, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 81 • Wittneben, B., Haxeltine, A., Kjellen, B., Köhler, J., Turnpenny, J., and Warren, R., (2005) A framework for assessing the political economy of post-2012 global climate regime, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 80 • Ingham, I., Ma, J., and Ulph, A. M. (2005) Can adaptation and mitigation be complements?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 79 • Agnolucci,. P (2005) Opportunism and competition in the non-fossil fuel obligation market, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 78 • Barker, T., Pan, H., Köhler, J., Warren., R and Winne, S. (2005) Avoiding dangerous climate change by inducing technological progress: scenarios using a large-scale econometric model, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 77

Tyndall Working Papers

2000 - 2007

• Agnolucci,. P (2005) The role of political uncertainty in the Danish renewable energy market, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 76 • Fu, G., Hall, J. W. and Lawry, J. (2005) Beyond probability: new methods for representing uncertainty in projections of future climate, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 75 • Ingham, I., Ma, J., and Ulph, A. M. (2005) How do the costs of adaptation affect optimal mitigation when there is uncertainty, irreversibility and learning?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 74 • Walkden, M. (2005) Coastal process simulator scoping study, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 73 • Lowe, T., Brown, K., Suraje Dessai, S., Doria, M., Haynes, K. and Vincent., K (2005) Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perceptions of climate change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 72 • Boyd, E. Gutierrez, M. and Chang, M. (2005) Adapting small-scale CDM sinks projects to low-income communities, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 71 • Abu-Sharkh, S., Li, R., Markvart, T., Ross, N., Wilson, P., Yao, R., Steemers, K., Kohler, J. and Arnold, R. (2005) Can Migrogrids Make a Major Contribution to UK Energy Supply?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 70 • Tompkins, E. L. and Hurlston, L. A. (2005) Natural hazards and climate change: what knowledge is transferable?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 69 • Bleda, M. and Shackley, S. (2005) The formation of belief in climate change in business organisations: a dynamic simulation model, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 68 • Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine, A. and O’Riordan, T., (2005) Developing regional and local scenarios for climate change mitigation and adaptation: Part 2: Scenario creation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 67 • Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine, A., Lorenzoni, I., O’Riordan, T., and Jones, M., (2005) Mapping actors involved in climate change policy networks in the UK, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 66

• Adger, W. N., Brown, K. and Tompkins, E. L. (2004) Why do resource managers make links to stakeholders at other scales?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 65 • Peters, M.D. and Powell, J.C. (2004) Fuel Cells for a Sustainable Future II, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 64 • Few, R., Ahern, M., Matthies, F. and Kovats, S. (2004) Floods, health and climate change: a strategic review, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 63 • Barker, T. (2004) Economic theory and the transition to sustainability: a comparison of approaches, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 62 • Brooks, N. (2004) Drought in the African Sahel: long term perspectives and future prospects, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 61 • Few, R., Brown, K. and Tompkins, E.L. (2004) Scaling adaptation: climate change response and coastal management in the UK, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 60 • Anderson, D and Winne, S. (2004) Modelling Innovation and Threshold Effects In Climate Change Mitigation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 59 • Bray, D and Shackley, S. (2004) The Social Simulation of The Public Perceptions of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 58 • Shackley, S., Reiche, A. and Mander, S Public Perceptions of (2004) The Underground Coal Gasification (UCG): A Pilot Study, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 57 • Vincent, K. (2004) Creating an index of social vulnerability to climate change for Africa, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 56 • Mitchell, T.D. Carter, T.R., Jones, .P.D, Hulme, M. and New, M. (2004) A comprehensive set of high-resolution grids of monthly climate for Europe and the globe: the observed record (1901-2000) and 16 scenarios (2001-2100), Tyndall Centre Working Paper 55

Tyndall Working Papers

2000 - 2007

• Turnpenny, J., Carney, S., Haxeltine, A., and O’Riordan, T. (2004) Developing regional and local scenarios for climate change mitigation and adaptation Part 1: A framing of the East of England Tyndall Centre Working Paper 54 • Agnolucci, P. and Ekins, P. (2004) The Announcement Effect And Environmental Taxation Tyndall Centre Working Paper 53 • Agnolucci, P. (2004) Ex Post Evaluations of CO2 –Based Taxes: A Survey Tyndall Centre Working Paper 52 • Agnolucci, P., Barker, T. and Ekins, P. (2004) Hysteresis and Energy Demand: the Announcement Effects and the effects of the UK Climate Change Levy Tyndall Centre Working Paper 51 • Powell, J.C., Peters, M.D., Ruddell, A. and Halliday, J. (2004) Fuel Cells for a Sustainable Future? Tyndall Centre Working Paper 50 • Awerbuch, S. (2004) Restructuring our electricity networks to promote decarbonisation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 49 • Pan, H. (2004) The evolution of economic structure under technological development, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 48 • Berkhout, F., Hertin, J. and Gann, D. M., (2004) Learning to adapt: Organisational adaptation to climate change impacts, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 47 • Watson, J., Tetteh, A., Dutton, G., Bristow, A., Kelly, C., Page, M. and Pridmore, A., (2004) UK Hydrogen Futures to 2050, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 46 • Purdy, R and Macrory, R. (2004) Geological carbon sequestration: critical legal issues, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 45 • Shackley, S., McLachlan, C. and Gough, C. (2004) The Public Perceptions of Carbon Capture and Storage, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 44 • Anderson, D. and Winne, S. (2003) Innovation and Threshold Effects in Technology Responses to Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 43

• Kim, J. (2003) Sustainable Development and the CDM: A South African Case Study, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 42 • Watson, J. (2003), UK Electricity Scenarios for 2050, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 41 Klein, R.J.T., Lisa Schipper, E. and Dessai, • S. (2003), Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 40 Tompkins, E. and Adger, W.N. (2003). • Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 39 Brooks, N. (2003). Vulnerability, risk • and adaptation: a conceptual framework, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 38 Ingham, A. and Ulph, A. (2003) • Uncertainty, Irreversibility, Precaution and the Social Cost of Carbon, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 37 Kröger, K. Fergusson, M. and Skinner, I. • (2003). Critical Issues in Decarbonising Transport: The Role of Technologies, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 36 Tompkins E. L and Hurlston, L. (2003). • Report to the Cayman Islands’ Government. Adaptation lessons learned from responding to tropical cyclones by the Cayman Islands’ Government, 1988 – 2002, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 35 Dessai, S., Hulme, M (2003). Does climate • policy need probabilities?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 34 Pridmore, A., Bristow, A.L., May, A. D. and • Tight, M.R. (2003). Climate Change, Impacts, Future Scenarios and the Role of Transport, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 33 Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G. • (2003). Integrating Renewables and CHP into the UK Electricity System: Investigation of the impact of network faults on the stability of large offshore wind farms, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32 Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine A. and O’Riordan, • T. (2003). A scoping study of UK user needs for managing climate futures. Part 1 of the pilot-phase interactive integrated assessment process (Aurion Project), Tyndall Centre Working Paper 31
2000 - 2007

Tyndall Working Papers

• Hulme, M. (2003). Abrupt climate change: can society cope?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 30 Brown, K. and Corbera, E. (2003). A • Multi-Criteria Assessment Framework for Carbon-Mitigation Projects: Putting “development” in the centre of decisionmaking, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 29 Dessai, S., Adger, W.N., Hulme, M., • Köhler, J.H., Turnpenny, J. and Warren, R. (2003). Defining and experiencing dangerous climate change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 28 Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N. (2003). • Building resilience to climate change through adaptive management of natural resources, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 27 Brooks, N. and Adger W.N. (2003). • Country level risk measures of climaterelated natural disasters and implications for adaptation to climate change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 26 Xueguang Wu, Mutale, J., Jenkins, N. and • Strbac, G. (2003). An investigation of Network Splitting for Fault Level Reduction, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 25 Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G. • (2002). Impact of Integrating Renewables and CHP into the UK Transmission Network, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 24 Paavola, J. and Adger, W.N. (2002). • Justice and adaptation to climate change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 23 Watson, W.J., Hertin, J., Randall, T., • Gough, C. (2002). Renewable Energy and Combined Heat and Power Resources in the UK, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 22 Watson, W. J. (2002). Renewables and • CHP Deployment in the UK to 2020, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 21 Turnpenny, J. (2002). Reviewing • organisational use of scenarios: Case study - evaluating UK energy policy options, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 20 Pridmore, A. and Bristow, A., (2002). The • role of hydrogen in powering road transport, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 19 Watson, J. (2002). The development of • large technical systems: implications for hydrogen, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 18
Tyndall Working Papers

Dutton, G., (2002). Hydrogen Energy • Technology, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 17 Adger, W.N., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conway, • D. and Hulme, M. (2002). Adaptation to climate change: Setting the Agenda for Development Policy and Research, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 16 Köhler, J.H., (2002). Long run technical • change in an energy-environment-economy (E3) model for an IA system: A model of Kondratiev waves, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 15 Shackley, S. and Gough, C., (2002). The • Use of Integrated Assessment: An Institutional Analysis Perspective, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 14 Dewick, P., Green K., Miozzo, M., (2002). • Technological Change, Industry Structure and the Environment, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 13 Dessai, S., (2001). The climate regime • from The Hague to Marrakech: Saving or sinking the Kyoto Protocol?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 12 Barker, T. (2001). Representing the • Integrated Assessment of Climate Change, Adaptation and Mitigation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 11 Gough, C., Taylor, I. and Shackley, S. • (2001). Burying Carbon under the Sea: An Initial Exploration of Public Opinions, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 10 Barnett, J. and Adger, W. N. (2001). • Climate Dangers and Atoll Countries, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 9 Adger, W. N. (2001). Social Capital and • Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 8 Barnett, J. (2001). Security and Climate • Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 7 Goodess, C.M., Hulme, M. and Osborn, T. • (2001). The identification and evaluation of suitable scenario development methods for the estimation of future probabilities of extreme weather events, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 6 Barnett, J. (2001). The issue of 'Adverse • Effects and the Impacts of Response Measures' in the UNFCCC, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 5
2000 - 2007

• Barker, T. and Ekins, P. (2001). How High are the Costs of Kyoto for the US Economy?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 4 Berkhout, F, Hertin, J. and Jordan, A. J. • (2001). Socio-economic futures in climate change impact assessment: using scenarios as 'learning machines', Tyndall Centre Working Paper 3 Hulme, M. (2001). Integrated • Assessment Models, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 2

Mitchell, T. and Hulme, M. (2000). A • Country-by-Country Analysis of Past and Future Warming Rates, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 1

© Copyright 2007

For further information please contact Javier Delgado-Esteban

Tyndall Working Papers

2000 - 2007

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.